Mathilde Wagner1,2, Stefanie Hectors1, Octavia Bane1, Sonja Gordic1,3, Paul Kennedy1, Cecilia Besa1,4, Thomas D Schiano5, Swan Thung6, Aaron Fischman7, Bachir Taouli1,8. 1. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 2. Sorbonne Universités, CNRS, INSERM, LIB, Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Liver Diseases, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension (PH), defined by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥5 mmHg and clinically significant PH, defined by HVPG ≥10 mmHg, are complications of chronic liver disease. PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of MR elastography (MRE) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the liver and spleen for the prediction of PH and clinically significant PH, in comparison with a qualitative PH imaging scoring system. STUDY TYPE: IRB-approved prospective study. POPULATION: In all, 34 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent HVPG measurement. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5/3T examination including 2D-GRE MRE (n = 33) and DCE-MRI of the liver/spleen (n = 28). ASSESSMENT: Liver and spleen stiffness were calculated from elastogram maps. DCE-MRI was analyzed using model-free parameters and pharmacokinetic modeling. Two observers calculated qualitative PH imaging scores based on routine images. STATISTICAL TESTS: Imaging parameters were correlated with HVPG. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for prediction of PH and clinically significant PH. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between DCE-MRI parameters (liver time-to-peak, r = 0.517 / P = 0.006, liver distribution volume, r = 0.494 / P = 0.009, liver upslope, r = -0.567 / P = 0.002), liver stiffness (r = 0.478 / P = 0.016), PH imaging score (r = 0.441 / P = 0.009), and HVPG. ROC analysis provided significant area under the ROC (AUROCs) for PH (liver upslope 0.765, liver stiffness 0.809, spleen volume/diameter 0.746-0.731, PH imaging score 0.756) and for clinically significant PH (liver and spleen perfusion parameters 0.733-0.776, liver stiffness 0.742, PH imaging score 0.742). The ratio of liver stiffness to liver upslope had the highest AUROC for diagnosing PH (0.903) and clinically significant PH (0.785). DATA CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that the combination of liver stiffness and perfusion metrics provide excellent accuracy for diagnosing PH, and fair accuracy for clinically significant PH. Combined MRE and DCE-MRI outperformed qualitative imaging scores for prediction of PH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1091-1103.
BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension (PH), defined by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥5 mmHg and clinically significant PH, defined by HVPG ≥10 mmHg, are complications of chronic liver disease. PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of MR elastography (MRE) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the liver and spleen for the prediction of PH and clinically significant PH, in comparison with a qualitative PH imaging scoring system. STUDY TYPE: IRB-approved prospective study. POPULATION: In all, 34 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent HVPG measurement. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5/3T examination including 2D-GRE MRE (n = 33) and DCE-MRI of the liver/spleen (n = 28). ASSESSMENT: Liver and spleen stiffness were calculated from elastogram maps. DCE-MRI was analyzed using model-free parameters and pharmacokinetic modeling. Two observers calculated qualitative PH imaging scores based on routine images. STATISTICAL TESTS: Imaging parameters were correlated with HVPG. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for prediction of PH and clinically significant PH. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between DCE-MRI parameters (liver time-to-peak, r = 0.517 / P = 0.006, liver distribution volume, r = 0.494 / P = 0.009, liver upslope, r = -0.567 / P = 0.002), liver stiffness (r = 0.478 / P = 0.016), PH imaging score (r = 0.441 / P = 0.009), and HVPG. ROC analysis provided significant area under the ROC (AUROCs) for PH (liver upslope 0.765, liver stiffness 0.809, spleen volume/diameter 0.746-0.731, PH imaging score 0.756) and for clinically significant PH (liver and spleen perfusion parameters 0.733-0.776, liver stiffness 0.742, PH imaging score 0.742). The ratio of liver stiffness to liver upslope had the highest AUROC for diagnosing PH (0.903) and clinically significant PH (0.785). DATA CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that the combination of liver stiffness and perfusion metrics provide excellent accuracy for diagnosing PH, and fair accuracy for clinically significant PH. Combined MRE and DCE-MRI outperformed qualitative imaging scores for prediction of PH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1091-1103.
Authors: Mathilde Wagner; Idoia Corcuera-Solano; Grace Lo; Steven Esses; Joseph Liao; Cecilia Besa; Nelson Chen; Ginu Abraham; Maggie Fung; James S Babb; Richard L Ehman; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tobias Heye; Matthew S Davenport; Jeffrey J Horvath; Sebastian Feuerlein; Steven R Breault; Mustafa R Bashir; Elmar M Merkle; Daniel T Boll Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Lemoine; S Katsahian; M Ziol; P Nahon; N Ganne-Carrie; F Kazemi; V Grando-Lemaire; J-C Trinchet; M Beaugrand Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Chaan S Ng; David L Raunig; Edward F Jackson; Edward A Ashton; Frederick Kelcz; Kevin B Kim; Razelle Kurzrock; Teresa M McShane Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Elba Llop; Christie Perelló; Teresa Fontanilla; Juan de la Revilla; Marta Hernández Conde; Marta López; Javier Minaya; Carlos Ferre; Javier Abad; Carlos Fernández Carrillo; José Luís Martínez; Natalia Fernández Puga; María Trapero; Ismael El Hajra; Elena Santos; José Luis Calleja Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-22